Lies SCOTUS told me.
-
@jon-nyc said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
I can’t read it, it’s behind a registration wall.
Commentary
In a fashion we must now regard as entirely predictable the Supreme Court of the United States has dismissed (i.e., thrown out) the various state challenges to the 2020 presidential election.
Any decisions on these challenges were determined by the majority to be “moot” because the election had already been decided, and Donald Trump has conceded to Joe Biden. (Associate Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch objected in varying degrees.)
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations, although the results of that election can affect hundreds of millions, if not, as in the case of the United States, nearly the entirety of humanity.
This is true, apparently for a majority of the Supremes, although all sorts of crimes, some not particularly onerous, have statutes of limitations that can go on for years.
Go figure.
The Supremes also cited the issue of “standing,” a term of legal “art” that has always struck me, despite all the precedents on which it is supposedly based, as wide open for biased interpretation of the most self-serving sort. One person’s “standing” can be another’s closed door, almost at will and certainly by vote of a “majority.”
If I sound cynical about the Supreme Court, I have to admit I am. It’s even true of the law in general, which I want to believe in and admire, but increasingly no longer do.
In the real world, legal results tend to mirror A.J. Liebling’s 1960 comment in The New Yorker about the press: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
The law belongs to those who have the deepest control of a society at the time.
We want lady justice to be blind but in actuality she’s a cyborg with all-seeing, rotating night vision similar to the kind you might find on many urban street corners today from Beijing to Chicago, using the latest algorithms to isolate presumed enemies of the state.
And, yes, I am no lawyer. I haven’t taken even one course in the law and spent my time in college and graduate school studying now questionable white men like John Milton.
But over my decades as a Hollywood screenwriter and then founder and CEO of PJMedia I employed many lawyers—some very good and some not so much—and came to understand the limitations on what they did.
Contracts, it turned out, weren’t worth much more than the paper they were written on unless both parties wanted to honor them. Enforcing infringements, unless they were hugely egregious, was rarely worth the expense and effort.
Lawsuits—win or lose— tend to take over your life in highly deleterious ways. Few want to get involved.
The Supreme Court is the apotheosis of this system—an organization that puts its finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing (assuming that’s even necessary) and then writes its opinions based on pre-conceived notions designed to offend the lowest number.
Sadly, it is the last place to look for justice in a Presidential election—or anything, really, that tilts against that prevailing wind.
They wouldn’t even, as Clarence Thomas requested, explore the blatantly unconstitutional malfeasances in various states where unelected officials clearly and unlawfully superseded the legislatures in changing election law by fiat, something we would think would only happen in totalitarian countries.
But it happened here, my friends, several times. We could cite the Supreme Court for dereliction of duty … or we could look elsewhere for justice.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
What a whiner.
Basically, he's saying the legal system is no way to get justice.
Instead, we should 'look elsewhere'. What does that mean? Maybe he could write a movie about it?
-
Or by 'look elsewhere for justice', is he possibly suggesting something more radical?
-
SCOTUS, by not granting cert in the Pennsylvania case has all but guaranteed that this will happen again. What the PA Supreme Court (I think it was the Supreme Court) was a clear violation of Pennsylvania's constitution: that is, that all election laws have to be enacted by the legislature. People sued to get the deadlines extended, and the court ruled that it's OK, without the legislature being involved.
The first case was filed by both the Trump Campaign and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, challenging the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that made changes to the election laws in Pennsylvania. The most controversial change allowed the counting of mailed-in ballots received up to three days after election day — the election statute has a cut-off of 8:00 pm on election night — so long as the ballot envelope was postmarked on or before election day. Ballot envelopes with no postmark, or with an illegible postmark, were presumed to have been mailed prior to election day.
The first case was filed by both the Trump Campaign and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, challenging the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that made changes to the election laws in Pennsylvania. The most controversial change allowed the counting of mailed-in ballots received up to three days after election day — the election statute has a cut-off of 8:00 pm on election night — so long as the ballot envelope was postmarked on or before election day. Ballot envelopes with no postmark, or with an illegible postmark, were presumed to have been mailed prior to election day.
Defenders of the Pennsylvania Court’s decision argued that it is an accepted matter of US Supreme Court jurisprudence that State Supreme Courts have final say on the meaning of the State’s constitution, and in this instance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that Pennsylvania’s November 2020 elections could only be “fair and equal” for all voters if the deadline for receiving mailed-in ballots was extended by three-days based on the justifications presented to the Court in the record of the case.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, writes
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."
"One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us," he continued.
-
@jon-nyc said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
I can’t read it, it’s behind a registration wall.
Commentary
In a fashion we must now regard as entirely predictable the Supreme Court of the United States has dismissed (i.e., thrown out) the various state challenges to the 2020 presidential election.
Any decisions on these challenges were determined by the majority to be “moot” because the election had already been decided, and Donald Trump has conceded to Joe Biden. (Associate Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch objected in varying degrees.)
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations, although the results of that election can affect hundreds of millions, if not, as in the case of the United States, nearly the entirety of humanity.
This is true, apparently for a majority of the Supremes, although all sorts of crimes, some not particularly onerous, have statutes of limitations that can go on for years.
Go figure.
The Supremes also cited the issue of “standing,” a term of legal “art” that has always struck me, despite all the precedents on which it is supposedly based, as wide open for biased interpretation of the most self-serving sort. One person’s “standing” can be another’s closed door, almost at will and certainly by vote of a “majority.”
If I sound cynical about the Supreme Court, I have to admit I am. It’s even true of the law in general, which I want to believe in and admire, but increasingly no longer do.
In the real world, legal results tend to mirror A.J. Liebling’s 1960 comment in The New Yorker about the press: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
The law belongs to those who have the deepest control of a society at the time.
We want lady justice to be blind but in actuality she’s a cyborg with all-seeing, rotating night vision similar to the kind you might find on many urban street corners today from Beijing to Chicago, using the latest algorithms to isolate presumed enemies of the state.
And, yes, I am no lawyer. I haven’t taken even one course in the law and spent my time in college and graduate school studying now questionable white men like John Milton.
But over my decades as a Hollywood screenwriter and then founder and CEO of PJMedia I employed many lawyers—some very good and some not so much—and came to understand the limitations on what they did.
Contracts, it turned out, weren’t worth much more than the paper they were written on unless both parties wanted to honor them. Enforcing infringements, unless they were hugely egregious, was rarely worth the expense and effort.
Lawsuits—win or lose— tend to take over your life in highly deleterious ways. Few want to get involved.
The Supreme Court is the apotheosis of this system—an organization that puts its finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing (assuming that’s even necessary) and then writes its opinions based on pre-conceived notions designed to offend the lowest number.
Sadly, it is the last place to look for justice in a Presidential election—or anything, really, that tilts against that prevailing wind.
They wouldn’t even, as Clarence Thomas requested, explore the blatantly unconstitutional malfeasances in various states where unelected officials clearly and unlawfully superseded the legislatures in changing election law by fiat, something we would think would only happen in totalitarian countries.
But it happened here, my friends, several times. We could cite the Supreme Court for dereliction of duty … or we could look elsewhere for justice.
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
-
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
There is no statute of limitations when it comes to impeachment. That means that after a certain time, a person cannot be prosecuted for a crime.
The problem is that people treat impeachment as equivalent to a trial - it's not. It's a political process, and whatever rules (or lack of them) the congress chooses apply.
That said, the argument is that the Constitution states that impeachment is a vehicle for removing an official who is in office. The argument against impeachment is not one of statute of limitations, but one of the fact that the former president is no longer in office, so the whole process is moot.
The counter-argument is that impeachment is also defined to prevent the impeached party from holding federal office in the future.
-
All this because Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trumps appointees, voted to allow access to his finances?
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
The first time a Supreme Court justice votes political and not legal is the time you can close the court and agree you live in a totalitarian state.
-
All this because Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trumps appointees, voted to allow access to his finances?
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
The first time a Supreme Court justice votes political and not legal is the time you can close the court and agree you live in a totalitarian state.
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
All this because Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trumps appointees, voted to allow access to his finances?
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
The first time a Supreme Court justice votes political and not legal is the time you can close the court and agree you live in a totalitarian state.
One word - Ginsburg.
-
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
All this because Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trumps appointees, voted to allow access to his finances?
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
The first time a Supreme Court justice votes political and not legal is the time you can close the court and agree you live in a totalitarian state.
One word - Ginsburg.
@jolly said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
All this because Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trumps appointees, voted to allow access to his finances?
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
The first time a Supreme Court justice votes political and not legal is the time you can close the court and agree you live in a totalitarian state.
One word - Ginsburg.
One more word, Thomas
-
Seems like fewer and fewer of us want a Supreme Court to act like one. Everyone wants a super-legislature with their team in charge.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Seems like fewer and fewer of us want a Supreme Court to act like one. Everyone wants a super-legislature with their team in charge.
@jon-nyc said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
Seems like fewer and fewer of us want a Supreme Court to act like one. Everyone wants a super-legislature with their team in charge.
I'm exactly in the middle politically and I do want the Supreme Court to act like one.
-
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
All this because Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trumps appointees, voted to allow access to his finances?
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
The first time a Supreme Court justice votes political and not legal is the time you can close the court and agree you live in a totalitarian state.
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
Not only Supreme Court judges. Here, all judges are appointed and all, it seems, put the law first once they are on the bench. Politicians of all stripes often bear the brunt of their rulings.
-
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
Not only Supreme Court judges. Here, all judges are appointed and all, it seems, put the law first once they are on the bench. Politicians of all stripes often bear the brunt of their rulings.
@renauda said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
Not only Supreme Court judges. Here, all judges are appointed and all, it seems, put the law first once they are on the bench. Politicians of all stripes often bear the brunt of their rulings.
Electing judges has always struck me as a rather silly idea.
"Sure", they say, "we can't trust politicians to choose judges, so we'll choose them the same way we choose politicians" -
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
-
Seems like fewer and fewer of us want a Supreme Court to act like one. Everyone wants a super-legislature with their team in charge.
@jon-nyc said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
Seems like fewer and fewer of us want a Supreme Court to act like one. Everyone wants a super-legislature with their team in charge.
Warren Court.
Don't start nuthin' won't be nuthin'.
Link to videoImpeachment is going to follow the same path.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Doesn't matter what they say. He wasn't convicted. Period.
Anything else is just political fodder.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Doesn't matter what they say. He wasn't convicted. Period.
Anything else is just political fodder.
@jolly said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Doesn't matter what they say. He wasn't convicted. Period.
Anything else is just political fodder.
Impeachment trials are political fodder. The rule of law does not apply. Facts do not apply. Partisanship is all that applies. Similar to Jolly’s thread about the son who turned his dad in recently. You dont betray your own. Its ok, The footsteps of legal doom are approaching. This impeachment was the least of his worries
-
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
We don't trust the courts to provide justice, but the Senate is another matter entirely.
